Lecture
The mystery of the phenomenon of leadership, the successful impact of one person on others towards a given goal, has been taking humanity since time immemorial. Many philosophers, sociologists and psychologists have devoted their works to the search for answers to questions accompanying this phenomenon. Trying to answer such questions, the researchers expressed some assumptions, formulating various theories of leadership.
The term “leadership” itself comes from the English word “leadership,” which also means leadership, but domestic researchers usually distinguish leadership and leadership as two different phenomena inherent in organized (to one degree or another) communities.
The main difference here is as follows. The interaction of the leaders and the people they lead is carried out in the system of administrative and legal relations of one or another official organization. With regard to the interaction of leaders and the slave, it can occur in the system of administrative and legal, as well as moral and psychological relations between people. If the presence of managers is a necessary sign of any official organization, then leaders arise spontaneously as a result of the interaction of people in both official and unofficial organizations. Thus, in the same act of interaction between two employees of an organization or institution, sometimes you can observe both leadership relations and leadership relationships, and sometimes only one of these types of relationships.
The earliest attempts to build a theory of leadership include the search for specific personality traits inherent in leaders. At the same time, it was believed that a person appears as a leader due to his exceptional physical or psychological characteristics, which give him a certain superiority over others. Proponents of this approach are based on the premise that some people are “born leaders”, while others, wherever they may be, can never succeed.
The origins of such theories can be found in the writings of a number of philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome, who viewed the historical course of events as the result of the actions of prominent people who, by virtue of their natural qualities, were called to lead the masses. On the basis of such views, theories of the elite are formed later, arguing that an indispensable condition for the life of any society is its division into two unequal layers - a privileged ruling group, whose members are already initially called to lead, and the rest of the passive mass of people following the leaders.
In the XX century. psychologists who were in positions of behaviorism, began to lean toward the idea that the traits of a leader cannot be considered entirely innate and therefore some of them can be acquired through training and experience. Numerous empirical studies are being conducted with the aim of identifying universal traits that should be characteristic of leaders. Both psychological characteristics of leaders (intellect, will, self-confidence, the need for dominance, sociability, ability to adapt, sensitivity, etc.) and constitutional (height, weight, build) are analyzed.
Reviews of these works have shown a wide variety of "leader traits", found by different authors. Only 5% of these traits were common to all. As the English professor of management Ch. Handy (Handy, 1981) notes in her review, the following features most often stand out:
On the basis of the results of research in one large international company, C. Handy adds to these features the "helicopter factor", i.e. ability to rise above the particulars of the situation and perceive it in connection with the whole environment.
Other works of Western authors offer other lists of the most important traits of leaders. Although partial overlaps are sometimes found in these lists, yet there is not enough agreement among supporters of this approach. Opinions on the question of which traits of a leader are more significant and which are less important are too contradictory. Practice shows a lot of cases when one or another person who does not possess the “most important” features, nevertheless, successfully cope with all the functions of leaders. On the other hand, the presence of these traits in any individual does not always turn him into an effective leader.
Unsuccessful attempts to identify personality traits that would be constantly associated with successful leadership led to the formation of other theories. The concept of leadership is emerging, emanating from various functions that must be exercised in order for the group to achieve its goals, while remaining a viable, cohesive entity (Yukl and Wexley, 1971. P. 277).
An essential element of this approach was the shift of attention from the personality traits of the leader to his behavior. In accordance with this view, the functions performed by the leader depend on the particular situation. Therefore, it is concluded that it is necessary to take into account a number of “situational variables”, which is central to the “situational” theory of leadership.
There is a good deal of evidence that indicates that the behavior required from a leader in one situation may not meet the requirements of another situation. A leader who is constantly effective in a single type of situation is often helpless in other conditions. Take, for example, a person who does not have the ability to endure uncertainty. Such a person needs a set of fixed rules for successful activity. If the functioning of the group he heads is strictly regulated, this person will be an effective leader. But in the case when the organizational structure is characterized by great flexibility, variability, it will not be able to fulfill the role of a leader at all. Conversely, a person who is characterized by the need to take the initiative, will perform the functions of a leader in the best way precisely in a flexible organization, and not under strict regulation.
Thus, it is emphasized that for effective leadership in some conditions, the leader must have some personality traits, and in other conditions - features that are sometimes directly opposed. This also explains the emergence and change of informal leadership. Since the situation in any group, as a rule, is subject to certain changes, and personality traits are more stable, then leadership can be transferred from one member of the group to another. So, depending on the requirements of the situation, the leader will be the member of the group whose personality traits will at the moment be "leader traits."
As you can see, the personality traits of the leader are here considered only as one of the “situational” variables, along with others. These variables also include the expectations and needs of the people in charge, the structure of the group and the specific situation of the moment, the wider cultural environment in which the group is located.
A. Filet and R. House note the following "situational" variables that influence the effectiveness of leadership (leadership): the history of the organization; seniority in the position; age of the leader and his previous experience; the society in which the organization operates; specific requirements related to the work performed by this group; group psychological climate; type of work to be managed; group size; the extent to which the cooperation of group members is necessary; "cultural" (ie, due to the characteristics of the culture of society) expectations of subordinates; features of their personality; the time needed for making decisions (Filley and House, 1969).
Thus, there is a large variety of factors affecting leadership, but in their totality they do not constitute any grounded theory. There is not enough research data to substantiate the role of the listed “situational” variables. In general, such an approach downplays the role of personality activity, raising the totality of certain circumstances to the rank of a higher power, which completely determines the behavior of the leader.
In recent years, the concept of leadership has been developed in the West, understood as a “system of influences”. This concept is sometimes considered the further development of "situationism". However, unlike the situational approach, persons led by a leader are not considered as just one of the “elements” of a situation, but as a central component of the leadership process, its active participants. Proponents of this theory point out that the leader, of course, affects the slaves, but, on the other hand, the fact of the influence of the slaves on the leader is just as important.
Based on the analysis of the interaction between the leader and the slave, a number of Western authors conclude that a reasonable approach to the phenomenon of leadership should link together the following three variables - the leader, the situation and the group of the slaves. Thus, "the leader influences the group, and the group influences the leader; the leader influences the situation, and the situation influences the leader; the group influences the situation, and the situation affects the group" (Luthans, 1973. P. 504). Modern searches of the western psychologists in the field of building the concept of leadership are most often based on this point of view.
The focus of many papers on these issues is the question of the effectiveness of various styles of leadership. At the same time, researchers often proceed from the classification proposed in the late 1930s. C. Levin, R. Lippitt, and R. White (Lewin, Lippitt and White, 1939). This classification is based on such an important component of a leader’s behavior as his approach to decision-making. In this case, the following leadership styles.
Autocratic. The leader makes decisions alone, determining all the activities of subordinates and not giving them the opportunity to take the initiative.
Democratic. The leader involves subordinates in the decision-making process based on group discussion, stimulating their activity and sharing with them all decision-making powers.
Free (laissez-faire). The leader avoids any own participation in decision making, giving subordinates complete freedom to make decisions on their own.
A study conducted by K. Levin on the basis of experimentally created groups revealed the greatest advantages of a democratic leadership style. At the same time, the group was distinguished by the highest satisfaction, desire for creativity, the most favorable relationship with the leader. However, the indicators of manufactured products were the highest in terms of autocratic leadership, slightly lower - with a democratic style, the lowest - with a free style.
Note that at present, Western researchers often deviate from the terminology of K. Levin or extend the above classification. Thus, the synonyms of the autocratic style are sometimes used the terms "directive", "leader-oriented", "task-oriented" style. E. Jennings emphasizes "bureaucratic leadership," which is characterized by a high degree of reliance on appropriate regulations and the constant use of procedures prescribed by both the leader and the subordinate. This leadership implies a strong element of the autocratic style (Jennings, 1962).
Such terms as “equal”, “advisory”, “participating”, “collaborating”, also widely used in Western, especially American, psychological literature can be considered synonymous with democratic leadership style.
As for the free leadership style, it appears in practice as a lack of leadership in the truest sense of the word.
A brief review of the few studies available (mostly laboratory) of this style is given by W. French (French, 1970). Freedom of leadership has been found to lead to confusion, conflict, and frustration. At the same time, the quantity and quality of the work done is much lower than with a democratic leadership style. Below is the level of satisfaction of group members. However, a free leadership style led to more favorable relationships between group members than an autocratic style.
Numerous studies, including those carried out by domestic psychologists, show that each of the considered leadership styles has both advantages and disadvantages and gives rise to its own problems. So, autocratic leadership allows you to quickly make decisions. It is known that in the practice of the activities of various organizations, situations often arise in which decisions must be made promptly and success is achieved with full obedience to the order of the head. The choice of leadership style in this case should be determined by the time allotted for making a decision. One of the main drawbacks of this style is the often dissatisfaction of subordinates, who may consider that their creative powers are not properly applied. In addition, an autocratic leadership style usually gives rise to the abuse of negative sanctions (penalties).
The high effectiveness of democratic leadership is based on the use of the knowledge and experience of group members, but the implementation of this style requires the leader to make significant efforts to optimize communications and coordinate the activities of subordinates.
A free leadership style provides group members with a great initiative in resolving issues arising during work. On the one hand, this can contribute to the manifestation of people's activity, understanding that much depends on themselves. On the other hand, the leader’s passivity sometimes leads to complete disorientation of the group members: everyone acts on his own, which is not always compatible with their common tasks.
Thus, the main feature of effective leadership of people in organizations is flexibility. Depending on the specifics of the situation, the manager must skillfully use the advantages of a leadership style and neutralize its weaknesses.
Over time, the accumulation of empirical material in the study of management problems led Western researchers to the following question: could the elements of different styles be combined in the behavior of the same leader depending on the situation? So, on the basis of research B. Helpin and B. Wiener (Halpin and Winer, 1957) identified the following two most important, in their view, categories of managerial behavior.
"Attention" (consideration) - the goodwill of the manager in relations with subordinates, trust, readiness to explain their actions to them and listen to them, support for their interests. This category characterizes the degree to which a manager is attentive to subordinates, the quality of his relationship with them.
"Established structure" (initiating structure) - planning, assigning tasks and determining ways to accomplish them, clarifying the organizational roles of subordinates, requiring compliance with certain standards of activity, criticizing unsatisfactory work. This category describes the extent to which the leader is focused on the official task of the group and the use of available resources.
It is emphasized that these categories should not be considered as two completely different leadership styles. Although these categories of managerial behavior are considered independent of each other, but not mutually exclusive, i.e. they are inherent in each leader in different ratios. A manager can have high or low marks in both categories or low marks in one of them and high marks in the other.
Correlating these categories of managerial behavior with others also used in Western literature, French notes that “democratic leadership will include a high degree of“ attention ”and limit the high degree of“ structure being established ”" (French, 1970). Both autocratic and bureaucratic leadership can be characterized by a high degree of “institutional structure” and a low degree of “attention”. Free leadership is characterized by an almost complete absence of both.
Another group of psychologists (Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950) used the following two characteristics when studying the behavior of managers: orientation towards subordinates and orientation towards products. In terms of their content, these characteristics are very similar to the categories of "attention" and "structure to be established". Similarly, the results of research conducted by those and other authors. In general, management focused on subordinates causes a higher level of satisfaction. However, there is no data showing that one or another orientation of the leader leads to greater productivity.
Unsuccessful attempts to find permanent connections between different leadership styles (leadership) and the productivity of subordinates evoke critical remarks about behavioral theories of leadership by Western psychologists themselves. The following two issues are mainly discussed. “First, it is argued that attempts to characterize any leader, based on only one distinct leadership style, can be misleading. As accumulated facts show, a leader can adapt his leadership style in accordance with the requirements of the particular situation. secondly, it is extremely unbelievable that there is any leadership style that would be universally effective, "- noted in one of the reviews on the issues under consideration (Feldman, Arnold, 1983. P. 301-302). In this way,the traditional question of which leadership style is most effective is a thing of the past. Now the main question is formulated as follows: which leadership style will be most effective in some conditions, which style - in other conditions, which - in the third, etc.
One of the most illustrative examples of such a direction of leadership research (leadership) is F. Fiedler's situational theory (1967). He proposed a model of leadership effectiveness (leadership), based on the degree of “favorableness” of the situation. In accordance with this model, any management situation in an organization can be classified on the basis of how “favorable” the situation is for the manager. Under the "favorable" situation refers to the extent to which this situation gives the head the opportunity to influence the activities of his subordinates.
Fidler identifies the following three factors that determine the “favorableness” of the situation: the relationship between the leader and his subordinates, the structure of the task, and the power of the authority resulting from the official position of the leader. The interaction between these factors determines a certain degree of “favorableness” of the situation.
In this case, the decisive element of leadership is the nature of the relationship between the manager and subordinates, i.e. the degree to which they trust the supervisor and want to satisfy his requirements.
Analyzing the factors of “favorableness” of the situation, Fidler uses the dichotomy, dividing the possible relationship between the leader and the subordinates into good and bad, the tasks facing the group into structural and non-structural, and the authority of the leader into strong and weak. Based on empirical studies, eight “situational combinations” were identified. They range from the situation most favorable for the head (good relations with subordinates, structural task and a large official power) to the least favorable (bad relations with subordinates, non-structural task and weak official power).
In accordance with the model of Fiedler, in the first of these situations the best results are achieved by a task-oriented leader. Subordinate-oriented leadership is most effective in situations where the non-structural task and the official authority of a manager are less strong. However, in the "least favorable" situation, the best results, as Fiedler believes, will be achieved by a task-oriented leader (provided that the group recognizes him as their leader). As an example, Fiedler speaks of a group that finds itself in a tense situation that threatens the very existence of this group. Then, if the group members feel their dependence on the leader in terms of the struggle for existence, task-oriented leadership turns out to be the most effective.In such a situation, the manager has little time to develop friendly relations with subordinates. Thus, the management focused on subordinates, will be most effective only at intermediate stages, i.e. when the situation is classified as moderately favorable or moderately unfavorable.
As a result, Fidler points out the following three directions for increasing the effectiveness of management in organizations: further structuring the task, strengthening the official authority of the leader, changing the group in order to create a more favorable "climate". In his opinion, this approach is more practical, since one can hardly rely on the fact that the manager adapts to changing circumstances. Fidler believes that in most cases it is easier to change the characteristics of a "favorable situation" than to transfer an official leader from one job to another or teach him a different style of interaction with subordinates.
The provisions of this theory are among American psychologists as supporters and critics. The question of how right Fidler is, is widely debated, believing that the leader is not able to change his style and act flexibly. There are doubts about the validity of the factors of “favorableness” of the situation identified by Fidler, his approach to the interpretation of empirical material is criticized.
At the same time, a number of Western authors find significant opportunities for applying this concept in the practice of managing organizations. For example, we are talking about the selection and training of managers who would correspond to this situation. It also emphasizes the complexity and importance of assessing the situation in its entirety.
Currently, none of the considered leadership theories have received enough support from Western authors. However, it is generally accepted that when considering the issue of the effectiveness of various leadership styles, a number of factors of a particular situation should be taken into account. The need for consistency between the requirements of the situation and the potential capabilities of the leader is also obvious. Along with this, it is noted that the leader’s behavior is only one of the factors affecting his subordinates. “Many factors can be established that“ replace ”the leadership or neutralize it, - write D. Feldman and H. Arnold. - To become the most effective leader, the manager must not only choose a leadership style that would meet the requirements of the situationbut also to use the available opportunities to influence the mass of additional organizational factors that influence the satisfaction of subordinates and the fulfillment of their duties "(Feldman and Arnold, 1983. P. 325-326).
Leadership and leadership research conducted by Russian psychologists also show the need for a multidimensional approach to this phenomenon and the mandatory consideration of the specifics of the situation. For example, conclusions are drawn that different types of group tasks require different styles of leadership to solve them (Volkov, 1971), and the elements of all three of the above main components of leadership style (Zhuravlev, 1983), in spite of the head of the “autocrat” - “democrat”, in front of one of the poles of the continuum, the model of interaction between the leader and the group should be evaluated in many ways (Krichevsky, Ryzhak, 1985).
In conclusion, we note that any situation of leadership and leadership always occurs in a specific social context, characterized primarily by the time and place of action (both in a narrow and in a broad sense). Consideration of the factors influencing the process of leadership (leadership) leads us to the conclusion that in building this or that theory of leadership it is necessary to take into account the dependence of the leader’s activity on the characteristics of the macroenvironment, socio-economic and socio-political relations inherent in this social system, the specific culture of this society as a whole.
Comments
To leave a comment
Group psychology
Terms: Group psychology